[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0359 (Unique and Stable Stanza IDs)
flo at geekplace.eu
Sun Nov 25 22:43:41 UTC 2018
On 22.11.18 18:07, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
> Am Mi., 14. Nov. 2018 um 19:52 Uhr schrieb Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de>:
>> * Jonas Schäfer <jonas at wielicki.name> [2018-10-20 13:55]:
>> A point that I brought up back then, and that I think needs to be added
>> in §2.2 is this:
>> | The message sender MUST set the stanza's @id to the same value as the
>> | origin-id.
>> The example should be changed accordingly.
>> There is really no drawback in specifying that (as a MUST, or at least a
>> SHOULD), and there is a huge amount of pain and madness later down the
>> road if we don't mandate it. In my eyes, this is the only reasonable way
>> to move forward.
>> Therefore I change my vote to -1 unless the above statement is added
>> with either a SHOULD or (preferrably) a MUST.
> I raised the some concerns multiple times on I’m also -1 on that
> before this addressed.
> Especially since I don’t see a reason for *not* doing this even if
> some people thing it is not needed.
Thanks Daniel and Georg for you feedback.
The requests to require both values to be equal have always been very
vague: No actual arguments were given why that would be beneficial.
Maybe I missed them, and I'm sorry if that is the case. I looked into my
notes, which I keep for every XEP I care about or I am personally
involved in, but could not find any records regarding the potential
upsides of doing so. Also, a quick search for the previous discussion of
this topic yielded no results (*Summoning Zash* because I could bet
there was such a discussion).
On the other hand, there are reasons against:
- origin-id is entirely unrelated to the stanza id attribute
- it adds another rule to the XEP, hence increasing its complexity
- even if we would mandate it, you are not guaranteed that you will
receive stanzas where origin-id is the same value as the stanza id
attribute because - of MUC id rewrite (yes I know of the latest changes
- because there may be XEP-0359 implementations which do not do it
(unless you want a namespace bump)
I am happy to be convinced that your suggestion improves the XEP and the
XMPP ecosystem as a whole. But I also hope that it is understandable
that it is hard for me to become convinced of a change without providing
any arguments in favour of the particular change. Arguments that could
put weight in against the counterarguments.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards